Could someone examine this PCN & Final Notice for potential errors, please?

glassblower12

Dear Forumites

Could someone take a look at the attached PCN & Final Notice, please. I'm unsure of errors that I should be looking for that I can use as a defence should DCBLegal proceed to court.

The PCN was received by post, nothing was put on the windscreen at the time of the event.

Thank you

Umkomaas

I can't see any 'errors', like glaringly obvious PoFA deficiencies. But, you don't need to be looking for minuscule loopholes, just await any next step from DCB Legal and use the advice in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the defence from the Template Defence Announcement. 

G24 seem to have off-loaded a shedload of close-to-statute-limitation-date unpaid PCNs, for DCB Legal to chase and gather any scraps before it's too late. So, bear in mind that your alleged debt (for litigation purposes) expires 6 years after the date of the parking event.

If you receive a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal, you need to try to filibuster it until 28 September 2025, to make void any court claim being made thereafter.

Coupon-mad

I think I'm going down the route of vehicle parked there without permission, hence trespass and not the responsibility of the parking operator to chase.

Errrr...no you won't!

Your para 3 in defence can say that this was an unremarkable day six years ago and as far as the D is aware, the sign at the time offered 240 minutes (4 hours) free parking and the D has an evidence photo that will be produced in evidence. Even if the C is able to prove that on the material date, and in the exact spaces where the car was parked, there was a prominent adjacent sign offering only 180 minutes free parking (as was claimed in the notice to keeper) the total stay - images captured in moving traffic - was only 192 minutes. Given it takes at least 5-10 minutes to find a space at Meadowhall, which is a large and busy car park, and given the longstanding industry minimum ten minutes grace period, it is clear that no allowance was made as a 'consideration period' on arrival. The 'period of parking' would have been no more than 180 minutes and the charge is unenforceable because a lack of consideration period is patently unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

glassblower12

Coupon-mad said:

I think I'm going down the route of vehicle parked there without permission, hence trespass and not the responsibility of the parking operator to chase.

Errrr...no you won't!

Your para 3 in defence can say that this was an unremarkable day six years ago and as far as the D is aware, the sign at the time offered 240 minutes (4 hours) free parking and the D has an evidence photo that will be produced in evidence. Even if the C is able to prove that on the material date, and in the exact spaces where the car was parked, there was a prominent adjacent sign offering only 180 minutes free parking (as was claimed in the notice to keeper) the total stay - images captured in moving traffic - was only 192 minutes. Given it takes at least 5-10 minutes to find a space at Meadowhall, which is a large and busy car park, and given the longstanding industry minimum ten minutes grace period, it is clear that no allowance was made as a 'consideration period' on arrival. The 'period of parking' would have been no more than 180 minutes and the charge is unenforceable because a lack of consideration period is patently unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Wow, thank you so much! I hadn't spotted the 240/180 minutes issue. Fresh eyes and an obvious wealth of knowledge has done the trick. I can't thank you enough!

Castle

Which "Meadowhall" is this as there's more than one?